Poll: What if "Version Exclusives" were in games other than Pokemon?

[Aerosteam]

Before I start, I want to mention this isn't a discussion about if Version Exclusives is good or bad in Pokemon. Long story short, it's good because it has a social aspect to it as it encourages trading between people who don't have the same version.

But what if Borderlands or Destiny had two different versions of one game and had exclusive guns in each one?

Not on the level of Megaman having exclusive robot masters or Mario having exclusive powerups, but something players can trade with one another. (Unless there's a way to connect with another player and give them access to the level or something.)

Is this something you wouldn't mind seeing in more games? Do you like the idea? Or hate it and leave the Version Exclusive thing only to Pokemon?

 

[Spanglish Guy]

Pokemon probably gets away with it now because of the global trading system in Pokemon X and Y making it less of an annoyance to obtain any pokemon that don't appear naturally in you game, still makes getting the other legendary a bit of a pain though.

It's certainly not something I would like to see in other games. It's better to have just the one version where everyone can get everything and trade those items for whatever items they haven't found or may prefer.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I hate it entirely, because I tend to be a collector of stuff in games, almost bordering on OCD. It irritated the hell out of me in Pokemon as a middle school child when Red & Blue came out, and it still irritates me today.

It doesn't "encourage" a social aspect of the game, it forces a social aspect onto an otherwise solo experience. The kicker being that it's a forced aspect that only applies to a certain niche within the community rather than all players.

And no, this isn't about not wanting to be social. Hell, I was the kid back in those Red & Blue days that actually had the link cable, and knew the trick to cloning traded Pokemon (resulting in pretty much everyone at my middle school having Mew, because I cloned it from a cousin who got it at some mall convention). I just prefer it when social aspects of a game are either completely mandatory for all players, or completely optional in all aspects. If a player wants to "Catch 'Em All!" like the tagline says, they should be allowed to without any caveats.

Especially not caveats that were blatantly just a cash grab, using "social gaming" as a convenient smokescreen so that people wouldn't notice what they were doing. It's right up there on the sleazy scale with cutting content from a finished game to make day-1 DLC.

 

[Zhukov]

Well, with preorder bonuses and retailer-specific bonuses, we kind of already have that in other games.

It kind of annoys me on principle, but I don't really care in practice. I've never seen content worth caring about get divided up like that. It's usually just a couple of skins or maybe a weapon.

 

[soren7550]

Well, with preorder bonuses and retailer-specific bonuses, we kind of already have that in other games.

And that's pretty much it (along with collector's edition exclusive content), except unlike Pokemon, it's often nearly impossible to get all the exclusives for any game that does this sort of thing.

 

[Elfgore]

I get it from a business perspective, hell maybe even a concept level. The whole "trade with friends" bullshit. Still fucking hate it. Hate everything about version exclusives. They're is a reason I used Pokecheck and Pokegen back when they worked. I wanted to fill up my Pokedex without having to trade with a thousand people. Version exclusives are bullshit no matter where they occur.

Zhukov's right as well. Since PS3/PS4 players have access to missions in Ubisoft's titles that Xbox and PC players do not.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Before I start, I want to mention this isn't a discussion about if Version Exclusives is good or bad in Pokemon. Long story short, it's good because it has a social aspect to it as it encourages trading between people who don't have the same version.

But what if Borderlands or Destiny had two different versions of one game and had exclusive guns in each one?

Not on the level of Megaman having exclusive robot masters or Mario having exclusive powerups, but something players can trade with one another. (Unless there's a way to connect with another player and give them access to the level or something.)

Is this something you wouldn't mind seeing in more games? Do you like the idea? Or hate it and leave the Version Exclusive thing only to Pokemon?

You mean like XBox Soul Caliber IV having Yoda and PS3 having Darth Vader (initially) or are you specifically referring to interactive versions.

I think it was well thought of to enable people to interact to complete the collection, but don't see how it would work in other games. No other game has a hardcore approach to collecting like that...

You have things like Animal Crossing now, which have things exclusive to people who play socially, where some items are unlocked by going to others worlds. I think this works better as a concept, and not having versions of the game.

 

[FPLOON]

Eh... I don't know...

I mean, I feel there should always be a means to get everything in the game on your own without resorting to any kind of "social aspect", however the addition of the social aspect of gameplay should just make it easier to obtain everything that you could have gotten by yourself, anyway... With that said, Pokemon barely gets away with it since you could technically buy both versions at around the same price as a full-price AAA game as well as enabling global connections so that you could basically trade/battle with anyone in the whole world if you have a stable internet connection, I guess... Granted, there's still those "temporary" gift events, but those Pokemon are basically off the Pokegrid, in terms of completing one's Pokedex... So, there's that...

Overall, unless it's not mandatory in terms of completion purposes, then I'm basically indifferent to the whole situation... Then again, I don't really like forced social interactions, so there's that...

 

[Stats ^1]

The only reason it works in Pokemon now is because it's a remaining feature from when the games first made their debut.

Pokemon games had version exclusives because it made them from single player games into an MMO experience. They were games which encouraged children to go outside and play the games together, which was a really big thing.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Never liked the system myself, feels like a cheap way of locking you out.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'd just as soon see it removed, even from Pokémon.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Err the thing is, in Borderlands the manufacturers that make the guns have different traits to their gun like Torgue gun are explosive only and Jakobs gun have more powers but no element damages in them so the version exclusive will only really work if it's a different bunch of guns than exclusive manfactureres. E.g. Dahl is my favourite manufacturer but I absolutly loathe their sniper rifle!

I think it should only stayed in Pokemon/ collection like games only.

 

[Dragonbums]

It's kind of hard to compare because the version exclusive is done in such a way and implemented in a game that at it's core encourages face to face trading with other players of the opposite version to get what you want. What's more, even today it takes me only a few minutes of making a thread, and patiently waiting for replies and FC swapping to set up exclusive trading deals. Or hell, if you have even at least one other friend in real life into Pokemon, just go up and ask him/her to get X version while you go get Y version. That's what my friends and I did. I now have all exclusive Pokemon from Pokemon Y and it required minimal effort on my part.


However a lot of games aren't really built that way. Especially since local co-op/multiplayer has basically died outside of Nintendo platforms and a select few dev studios.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

That seems like it would strongly discourage single-players entirely...I already feel cheated by Pokemon for making it impossible to catch-em-all without both versions (and at this point I need a cheat device for most of the event legendaries). Anyway, if other games were to have version exclusive stuff I'd just avoid those games or do what I currently do when games launch with pre-order DLC (or retailer-specific pre-order DLC) which is to wait until a complete or, GotY edition comes out. I hate when games are released incomplete and, feel like buying those games early encourages bad behavior on the publishers/developers part.

I'd just as soon see it removed, even from Pokémon.

Never liked the system myself, feels like a cheap way of locking you out.

Yeah, what they said.

 

[laggyteabag]

It has been around in a few games, just not games that are very good. For instance, Fable 3 has a lot of weapons, but only a few of them are available on a single playthrough, this means that if you want to get a specific weapon, you have to trade with someone to get it. It is an idea that I generally hate, mostly because I like my singleplayer games to remain singleplayer, mostly because I don't like to rely on other people to be able to do a specific thing, or in the case of trading, I dont like to feel like I owe them something.

 

[madwarper]

I'd say to leave it with Pokemon, and games like it. As others have noted, the game is supposed to be a social experience. Battling other human trainers, and trading with them. So, even if PlayerA has PokemonX and PlayerB has PokemonY, they can trade and decrease the effects of the exclusivity, while breeding a social atmosphere.

It's not like PlayerA gets Batman from Gamestop and has Day1DLCX and PlayerB gets Batman from Amazon and has Day1DLCY, they can't exchange their DLC to have the same complete experience.

 

[Bellvedere]

I have a feeling I might only like the version exclusive thing in Pokemon because I have such fond memories of convincing my best childhood friend to get the opposite version of GenI to me then playing through the games together and trading Pokemon. These days it's becoming increasingly more trivial with the built-in online trading mechanisms (and the various ways to cheat) that, from a players perspective, the version exclusive thing is more acceptable and desirable because of convention than perhaps anything else (which is not to imply that there's not people that love the communities that arise around trading Pokemon online and offline).

I have trouble thinking of the kind of titles and collection based gameplay that would motivate me now, as an adult, to want to dedicate time to doing that. I've been playing Pokemon since I was six, I'm obviously heavily invested in the series and have been for years. For a new title, I can just imagine myself not caring enough to bother with any social functions - to be honest it just sounds exhausting. Even with Pokemon I don't really care all that much about having a complete Pokedex (even of non-legendaries) and mostly engage in trading because it's what I've always done in Pokemon.

 

[Mezahmay]

As long as the game doesn't completely separate the content between versions then it will probably be fine. Pokemon used to have the trade with your friends angle that worked pretty well, and now there's the global trade thing. I think WoW did a good job with the old neutral auction house to trade Horde and Alliance only items to opposing factions. I think there's just one auction house now.

I don't trust every future developer to pull this off well and it will probably end up in a similar situation to what most F2P games do for monetization, but in theory it could work fine if handled properly as a form of in-game economy or pseudo social reasons.

 

[EHKOS]

A young EHKOS always thought when he grew up he would finally have friends to trade Pokemon with. Adult EHKOS is still pissed off about the whole thing. Plus I don't like people anyway.